The legacy of 'W'?

[70Chip]

Historians will view him negatively, but they're all Liberals. He doesn't care and neither do I because he has only done what was necessary and proper.

As for the "mountain of controversy" in 2000, it exists only in the minds of the losers. Close, yes. Controversial? Only to the extent that Al Gore tried to steal the election by doing a selective recount and excluding military votes and making sure their fellow Dems on the Florida Supreme Court (Barbara Pariente must be the dumbest woman I've ever seen on television) didn't allow the vote to be certified until they had pulled off the theft.

If I take a dump in the middle of the Christmas Parade, it wouild be somewhat misleading for me to then describe that parade as having been "controversial" in the passive voice.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Historians will view him negatively, but they're all Liberals. He doesn't care and neither do I because he has only done what was necessary and proper.

As for the "mountain of controversy" in 2000, it exists only in the minds of the losers. Close, yes. Controversial? Only to the extent that Al Gore tried to steal the election by doing a selective recount and excluding military votes and making sure their fellow Dems on the Florida Supreme Court (Barbara Pariente must be the dumbest woman I've ever seen on television) didn't allow the vote to be certified until they had pulled off the theft.

If I take a dump in the middle of the Christmas Parade, it wouild be somewhat misleading for me to then describe that parade as having been "controversial" in the passive voice.

As I understand it, the election was a statistical stalemate. The difference in votes for each candidate was not big enough to cover the margin of error. What do you do if Gore gets 49% and Bush gets 51%, but the margin of error is 2%?

Please correct me, if I am wrong.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

As I understand it, the election was a statistical stalemate. The difference in votes for each candidate was not big enough to cover the margin of error. What do you do if Gore gets 49% and Bush gets 51%, but the margin of error is 2%?

Please correct me, if I am wrong.

Margin of error applies to polls not elections. You only have to win an election by one vote.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Margin of error applies to polls not elections. You only have to win an election by one vote.

It is true that one vote can win an election, in theory. However, in practice I do not believe that every vote is counted. Usually the margins are wide enough for a solid statistical conclusion to be made about the outcome -- at which time, the loser usually concedes.

Many votes are not accepted for a variety of reasons, and this is usually not a problem. In the case of 2000, with such a close election, these votes could have changed the outcome. So, you have unambiguous votes for one candidate, that were not accepted because they were cast in the incorrect precinct. Or, you have votes from overseas which arrived late. Should the outcome of the Presidential election come down to a technicality? I think this is why they went to court.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

It is true that one vote can win an election, in theory. However, in practice I do not believe that every vote is counted. Usually the margins are wide enough for a solid statistical conclusion to be made about the outcome -- at which time, the loser usually concedes.

Many votes are not accepted for a variety of reasons, and this is usually not a problem. In the case of 2000, with such a close election, these votes could have changed the outcome. So, you have unambiguous votes for one candidate, that were not accepted because they were cast in the incorrect precinct. Or, you have votes from overseas which arrived late. Should the outcome of the Presidential election come down to a technicality? I think this is why they went to court.

There are always votes that get tossed out because they are improperly cast. For Gore to say, "those were votes for me, and I'm the winner" is unreasonable. It may be that his voters were less competent and more likely to have cast an overvote or an undervote but there is no way to know that. The best indication of what Gore was up to is the fact that he tried to exclude those absentee votes from mostly military people. At that point it should have been obvious that he didn't really believe he had won, but was rather trying to steal the thing.

I think what confused some people was the fact that the exit polling incorrectly predicted Gore to be the winner. That caused TV to give him the state (at about 8:45 PM EST, before all the polls in the state were closed, amazingly) and when they realized their mistake and changed their prediction it seemed as though there were some shenanigans when it was really just TV and the people they hire to do those exit polls making a mistake. Exit polls have become worthless as have polls generally, IMO, because conservatives will often tell a pollster to go eff himself. With caller ID, I think the polls that we see touted on TV are extremely suspect. Nobody with a life is going to talk to them.

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

There are always votes that get tossed out because they are improperly cast. For Gore to say, "those were votes for me, and I'm the winner" is unreasonable. It may be that his voters were less competent and more likely to have cast an overvote or an undervote but there is no way to know that. The best indication of what Gore was up to is the fact that he tried to exclude those absentee votes from mostly military people. At that point it should have been obvious that he didn't really believe he had won, but was rather trying to steal the thing.

I think what confused some people was the fact that the exit polling incorrectly predicted Gore to be the winner. That caused TV to give him the state (at about 8:45 PM EST, before all the polls in the state were closed, amazingly) and when they realized their mistake and changed their prediction it seemed as though there were some shenanigans when it was really just TV and the people they hire to do those exit polls making a mistake. Exit polls have become worthless as have polls generally, IMO, because conservatives will often tell a pollster to go eff himself. With caller ID, I think the polls that we see touted on TV are extremely suspect. Nobody with a life is going to talk to them.

Facts you don't seem to be aware of:

The Bufferfly ballot in Palm Beach cost Gore thousands of votes.

Florida declared 80,000 black voters inelgible by falsely declaring them to be felons. Florida imported a felon list from Texas and eliminated every black in Florida who had the same name as a Texas felon.

Gore got more votes for president in Florida than Bush did. This was by final count. I realize that you think otherwise with some reason, but you are wrong. The count you are familiar with was the result of votes cast in disputed districts. Long after the election, a complete vote count of all of Florida showed Gore to be the winner, inspite of the felon's list, and inspite of the Butterfly ballot.

Gore didn't just win Florida by actual count, he should have won Florida by tens of thousands of votes, not just a few thousand.

Note: Opinion is one thing; being wrong about the facts is another. Curiously, however, in regard to the state vote count, the correct numbers wouldn't have mattered anyway. Gore didn't ask the whole state to recount votes, so was technically not entitled to a statewide recount,

What the recount did, however, was vindicate the maligned exit poll, which turned out to be correct and, indeed, did show that the Bush campaign had indeed engaged in funny business.

As we now know, the Bush machine has been fundamentally dishonest to an appalling degree since first appearing on the national scene. The Iraq war, tax giveaways to the rich, corruption, violations of civic liberties, spying, etc. had just been predictable aspects of its nature.

No other administration has ever been just a threat to the truth and liberty as well. Bush is truly not just the worse, but the most destructive and dangerous president in U.S. history. He has disgraced everyone who has ever believed in him.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

What the recount did, however, was vindicate the maligned exit poll, which turned out to be correct and, indeed, did show that the Bush campaign had indeed engaged in funny business.

As we now know, the Bush machine has been fundamentally dishonest to an appalling degree since first appearing on the national scene. The Iraq war, tax giveaways to the rich, corruption, violations of civic liberties, spying, etc. had just been predictable aspects of its nature.

No other administration has ever been just a threat to the truth and liberty as well. Bush is truly not just the worse, but the most destructive and dangerous president in U.S. history. He has disgraced everyone who has ever believed in him.

You should read the briefs submitted by BOTH Gore and Bush in Bush v. Gore. I don't think you would have the same image of Gore's camp after doing so. Gore's camp didn't want a total recount, they only wanted recounts of those districts in which Gore had the most supporters. Gore's camp also wanted to exclude absentee ballots submitted by members of the military on technical grounds because they knew 90%+ of them would vote for Bush. Gore didn't win the election, it was a close one, but he lost. I tend to vote for Dems, but they lose points in my book when they harken back to an election that took place almost a decade ago.

And I still do not know how you lambast Bush for being so disrepectful of U.S. law and values, and still probably think FDR was a great president. He's done nothing that other Presidents haven't done. And not to be a d**k, but since you are telling others to read books, I would suggest you do the same and read up on guys like Jackson, Lincoln, and FDR.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

Facts you don't seem to be aware of:

The Bufferfly ballot in Palm Beach cost Gore thousands of votes.

Florida declared 80,000 black voters inelgible by falsely declaring them to be felons. Florida imported a felon list from Texas and eliminated every black in Florida who had the same name as a Texas felon.

Gore got more votes for president in Florida than Bush did. This was by final count. I realize that you think otherwise with some reason, but you are wrong. The count you are familiar with was the result of votes cast in disputed districts. Long after the election, a complete vote count of all of Florida showed Gore to be the winner, inspite of the felon's list, and inspite of the Butterfly ballot.

Gore didn't just win Florida by actual count, he should have won Florida by tens of thousands of votes, not just a few thousand.

Note: Opinion is one thing; being wrong about the facts is another. Curiously, however, in regard to the state vote count, the correct numbers wouldn't have mattered anyway. Gore didn't ask the whole state to recount votes, so was technically not entitled to a statewide recount,

What the recount did, however, was vindicate the maligned exit poll, which turned out to be correct and, indeed, did show that the Bush campaign had indeed engaged in funny business.

As we now know, the Bush machine has been fundamentally dishonest to an appalling degree since first appearing on the national scene. The Iraq war, tax giveaways to the rich, corruption, violations of civic liberties, spying, etc. had just been predictable aspects of its nature.

No other administration has ever been just a threat to the truth and liberty as well. Bush is truly not just the worse, but the most destructive and dangerous president in U.S. history. He has disgraced everyone who has ever believed in him.

The butterfly ballot was designed by a Democratic election chairperson. Tough luck for Gore but there is no way of knowing who people meant to vote for, so no claims can be made as to how many votes Gore lost.

I find it improbable that there are 80,000 registered voters in Florida who had the same name as Texas felons and even more improbable that all those voters were black. Perhaps you could document.

I have never seen any recount that showed Gore to be the winner, though many have tried. Again, you might link to something. If what you say is true, then certainly some netroot blogger would be all over it.

I can't make heads ot tails of the section I highlighted. The reason Gore didn't ask for a statewide recount was because he wanted to do it in counties controlled by Democrats and where he was more likely to gain votes, Dade, Broward, etc. He eventually did call for a statewide recount after it became obvious that a selective recount strategy was making him look foolish.

Of course, if you could point to a reputable website that documents a rcount that shows Gore to be the winner then you might actually have a case. I've never seen one and you are the first person that I have heard claim to have knowledge of one. Let's see it.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

Facts you don't seem to be aware of:

The Bufferfly ballot in Palm Beach cost Gore thousands of votes.

Florida declared 80,000 black voters inelgible by falsely declaring them to be felons. Florida imported a felon list from Texas and eliminated every black in Florida who had the same name as a Texas felon.

Gore got more votes for president in Florida than Bush did. This was by final count. I realize that you think otherwise with some reason, but you are wrong. The count you are familiar with was the result of votes cast in disputed districts. Long after the election, a complete vote count of all of Florida showed Gore to be the winner, inspite of the felon's list, and inspite of the Butterfly ballot.

Gore didn't just win Florida by actual count, he should have won Florida by tens of thousands of votes, not just a few thousand.

Note: Opinion is one thing; being wrong about the facts is another. Curiously, however, in regard to the state vote count, the correct numbers wouldn't have mattered anyway. Gore didn't ask the whole state to recount votes, so was technically not entitled to a statewide recount,

What the recount did, however, was vindicate the maligned exit poll, which turned out to be correct and, indeed, did show that the Bush campaign had indeed engaged in funny business.

As we now know, the Bush machine has been fundamentally dishonest to an appalling degree since first appearing on the national scene. The Iraq war, tax giveaways to the rich, corruption, violations of civic liberties, spying, etc. had just been predictable aspects of its nature.

No other administration has ever been just a threat to the truth and liberty as well. Bush is truly not just the worse, but the most destructive and dangerous president in U.S. history. He has disgraced everyone who has ever believed in him.

Well if Gore wins his own damn state of Tennessee then he gets enough electoral votes and Florida isn't even an issue. Where's the outcry over that?